Energy modelling and field testing of natural gas absorption heat pump system in cold climate - Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility of a Natural Gas Absorption Heat Pump (GAHP) was investigated through the use of a technology screening tool developed in Excel and TRNSYS simulations that used experimentally evaluated performance curves using 50% propylene glycol (PG)/water solution. The Excel tool was used for cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions analysis and indicated that the GAHP was cost effective compared to an Air-Source Heat Pump (ASHP) in locations where the primary heating fuel was natural gas and had significantly lower GHG emissions compared to a 90% efficient natural gas furnace. During the heating season, it was found that the system only had more than 100% heating Gas Utilization Efficiency (GUE) at -1.5°C or above and would go as low at 66% GUE at nominal flow and return temperatures. Part load performance was analyzed using experimental data and implemented in a TRNSYS model. The TRNSYS model shows significant losses from part load performance and 50% PG/water derating for both heating and cooling season due to excessive cycling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".